brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Sourcing (yes, again)
Ok, we all know about the dilemma with sourcing most of our articles- a lot of the information about a set/minifigure comes from first-hand knowledge or is self-evident by a picture of the topic in question. That isn't what this forum's about- it's to do with the information we can and should be sourcing as per Brickipedia:Sourcing, eg future set information. Basically, people sometimes tag the information with , and just leave it like that forever, not thinking about it again (myself included). Pages with can exist for months. So, what I'm proposing we do is to- * Create a template like "needSource"- looks very similar to , but would be a bit different in terms of use and functionality- say you have the information "8473 is a set to be released in 2034 which contains 20003 parts and costs $23.", and the number of pieces and price can't be backed up. Then, needSource can be applied like "8473 is a set to be released in 2034 .", which would appear as "8473 is a set to be released in 2034 which contains 20003 parts[source?] and costs $23[?]. Then (and this is where it falls down, because I don't know if it's possible), due to a timer in the template, a bot can remove the template and all of the text inside it if the template is still present after three days. Three days is more than enough time for someone to source something, and it could make our pages a bit more reliable. * - I also don't know if this can work, but maybe we good get a bot to tag a page with three days after the sourceless template has been added, then an admin can come and make a call as to whether it needs to be deleted due to being sourceless? Anyway, let me know what you think (and if any BAG/bot owner could let me know whether it's possible, please let me know too), just been seeing a few unsourced things around the place lately and want to do something about it, but maybe I'm just seeing problems where there aren't any. 23:21, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :*What if there is something like this, could we remove it right away, or would we have to wait three days? 00:12, January 6, 2012 (UTC) :** No, things you would normally revert would still be reverted, it'd just take the place of , where you can put that in if you're not sure if it should be removed or not. 00:37, January 6, 2012 (UTC) :*** was added to that shortly after. But if it is only taking the place of , then I'm fine, as long as the Bot stuff can be figured out. 00:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Good template, NHL. One nitpick: can we not have the content in question enclosed in the template, like with Wikipedia's iconic citation needed? FB100Z • talk • 05:29, January 6, 2012 (UTC) * Isn't that basically what is? The reason why I thought of putting the content inside the template was because how would the bot know what part to remove? If there's another way that works, I wouldn't have any problem with it 05:31, January 6, 2012 (UTC) *** Automatic content removal? Ugh. FB100Z • talk • 02:32, January 7, 2012 (UTC) * I've changes the second example, because I reckon "source?" was a bit long, and got in the way alot. If we enclosed the entire sentence or clause in the template, I could almost certainly get rid of it an anything inside with the bot. ** So replace the source for all of them with a ? Sounds ok to me, but some people could be confused as to what it means. Good to hear the bot could do that 22:37, January 6, 2012 (UTC) *'Closed'. This proposal can be implimented per consensus above. I don't know exactly how to do it myself, so much appreciated if someone who does know could. 00:55, April 8, 2012 (UTC)